Ex Parte Mo et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 28, 2018

13976492 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 28, 2018)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O.Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
13/976,492 11/26/2014 Stanley Mo P41606US 9707
88032 7590 03/02/2018
TnrHanTPT aw T T C
EXAMINER
12501 Prosperity Drive, Suite 401
Silver Spring, MD 20904
AHMED, SABA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2154
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/02/2018 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
info@jordaniplaw.com
admin @jordaniplaw.com
inteldocs_docketing @ cpaglobal. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte STANLEY MO, ROBERT STAUDINGER, VICTOR SZILAGYI,
and GUSTAVO D. DOMINGO YAGUEZ
Appeal 2017-008684
Application 13/976,492
Technology Center 2100
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, NABEEL U. KHAN, and
MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 23-53, which constitute all claims pending in this application.1 App.
Br. 5. Claims 1-22 have been canceled. Claims App’x. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Intel Corp. App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2017-008684
Application 13/976,492
Introduction
According to Appellants, the claimed subject matter relates to a
device executing a set top box (STB) dynamic search application (105)
configured to coordinate search of contents received from a first user device
(200) and a second user device (300). Spec. 3:15-21, Fig. 1. In particular,
upon receiving input search terms by a user at the first device, and another
user at the second device, the dynamic search application (105) initiates the
search in a coordinated manner so as to perform the searches in a sequence
that specifies the aspect to which each search should be confined. Id. 4:8—
18. Upon receiving the search results, the dynamic search application (105)
gathers the results, and presents them to the users in the manner specified by
each user. Id. at 4:22-5:10.
Representative Claim
Independent claim 23 is representative, and reads as follows:
23. A system, comprising:
a first user device including,
a first processing component;
a first device receiving module to receive information
relating to a topic of interest to a user;
a first device analyzing module to analyze the
information relating to the topic of interest to the user to
determine a search parameter;
a first device suggestion module to provide a suggestion
relating to the search parameter; and
a first device transmitting module to transmit a search
communication directing a coordinated search of content,
wherein the search communication includes the search
parameter, and wherein the first device receiving module is to
receive a first result communication including a first result; and
2
Appeal 2017-008684
Application 13/976,492
a second user device including;
a second processing component;
a second device receiving module to receive the search
communication directing the coordinated search of content
between the first user device and the second user device;
a second device search module to conduct a first search
utilizing the search parameter and generate the first result
relating to the search parameter; and
a second device result module to generate the first result
communication including the first result.
Rejection on Appeal
Claims 23-53 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (b) as being
anticipated by Kraft (US 2010/0070484 Al, published March 18, 2010).
Final Act. 3-23.
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue that Kraft does not describe “coordinated search[es]”
among user devices, as recited in independent claim 23. App. Br. 11-13.2
This argument is persuasive. As correctly noted by the Examiner,
Kraft describes a user interface including a selection control element to
enable a user to select text content, as well as to submit to a search engine
one or more query terms for subsequently performing a search within a
context, the result of which is displayed to the user. Final Act. 2-3, Ans. 2-
2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we
refer to the Appeal Brief (filed July 5, 2016) (“Br.”), and the Answer
(mailed December 6, 2016) (“Ans.”) for the respective details. We have
considered in this Decision only those arguments Appellants actually raised
in the Briefs. Any other arguments Appellants could have made but chose
not to make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
3
Appeal 2017-008684
Application 13/976,492
3 (citing Kraft ^ 11, 14). As further noted by the Examiner, Kraft also
describes multiple interfaces can be used to submit the queries to the search
server. Ans. 3 (citing Kraft ^ 50). Although the Examiner correctly finds
that the multiple interfaces could suggest multiple user devices, such
teaching is not sufficient to meet the disputed limitations under the
anticipation standard. Therefore, we agree with Appellants that the
Examiner’s assumption regarding teachings of Kraft is conclusory, and
belies the evidence needed to substantiate the anticipation rejection. Further,
although Kraft discloses performing multiple searches associated with
multiple queries, we agree with Appellants that Kraft is silent regarding
coordinating the searches. Because Appellants have shown at least one
reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection, we do not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. Accordingly, we reverse the obviousness
rejection of claim 1, as well as the rejection of claims 24-53, which also
suffer the deficiencies noted above.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we reverse the Examiner’s anticipation
rejection of claims 23-53.
REVERSED
4